HoF results
C Nick Beaudrot
http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2003/0107/1488588.html
A full ballot is available at
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20030107&content_id=190042&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp
(I hate MLB.com URLs)
No one else was above 55%. The next 6
Sutter 53.6
Rice 52.2
Dawson 50
Sandberg 49.2
Lee Smith 42.3
Gossage 42.1
[this bodes well for my personal ground axe: Ryne Sandberg.]
Relevant unloved stathead stepchildren.
Blyleven 29.2
Kaat 26.2
John 23.4
Relevant unloved media stepchildren
Morris 22.8
Mattingly 13.7
Cheers,
Nick
--
bomb Marx president encryption revolution Pat Buchanan unabomber occult
there are better ways to catch the bad guys than snooping tons of email
overthrow 2600 secret service Cornell West extermination satan
Marc Sindell
"C Nick Beaudrot" <n...@alumni.brown.edu> wrote in message
news:avfb3n$daq$1...@saturn.services.brown.edu...
> Eddie Murray and Gary Carter are in.
>
> http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2003/0107/1488588.html
>
> A full ballot is available at
>
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20030107&content_id=
190042&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp
>
Somebody voted for Danny Tartabull.
Mosey's Sequence
And 7 + 18 people (though there is probably some overlap) people who should have
their voting rights taken away.
John Mosey |..X..|....|Brew-o-meter FYBS! <--Translate and get a Brewers card
Exalted Grand Puba: http://www.fantasybaseballnews.com/
Sniveling Numbers Bitch: http://www.rotowire.com/baseball/
"Frankly, no one ever produced as good of projections as Mosey, but he's
gone straight downhill since fatherhood." -- Kevin Virobik
Tom MacIntyre
<n...@alumni.brown.edu> wrote:
>Eddie Murray and Gary Carter are in.
I'm glad for both, and especially for Carter for his career with "my"
Expos. I'd have to check a list, but is Carter the first original
(started out with the team, or was with them the first season) Expo to
get in? I can't think of anyone else.
Tom
John DiFool
according to their position. BJ has Hawk at #19 (peak in WS:
29 28 26), and Ryno at #7 (38, 37, 34). Yes, Sandberg porked
himself with his early (first) retirement, but Dawson wasn't anything
special over his last few years either.
JD
--
============================================
And she beckons to you with her secrets and lies
============================================
Dale J. Stephenson
other writers' picks:
Key to stats:
Peak -- total offensive wins (OW) for the best five years of the player
years are not necessarily consecutive.
Outside -- total offensive wins outside the best five years
Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
Years -- Games played, divided by most common games/team for each year.
@Pos -- percent of games played at this position
FR -- Career fielding runs, as estimated by Total Baseball VII.
Hall -- Hall of Fame status. * indicates HOFer, with VC or OT for committee
Active players listed as Actv
Currently BBWAA eligible listed with highest vote %.
Players not yet eligible listed with year of eligibility.
Players recently retired are listed with year to appear on ballot.
Players on ineligible list are listed as -IE-
Other -- % of games played at other positions. Less than 20% not listed.
OW -- Offensive Wins, (BR/A + SBR) / R/W.
R/W -- Runs per win, calculated by (4 * League Runs) / (1.83 * League Games)
BR/A -- park adjusted linear weight batting runs, calculated by TB VII.
SBR -- stolen base runs. (SB*0.22 - CS*0.35). Not calculated for years
without caught stealing totals.
Peaks for Prominent Catchers
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Johnny Bench 18.7 70s 10.2 13.5 81% -80 *
Gary Carter 15.9 80s 1.3 14.5 90% 54 *
Roy Campanella 15.3 50s -1.7 7.9 97% 33 *
Yogi Berra 14.3 50s 10.7 13.7 80% 57 *
Bill Dickey 14.2 30s 8.5 11.6 95% 24 *
Mickey Cochrane 13.7 30s 7.5 9.6 98% 14 *
Carlton Fisk 13.7 70s 7.2 15.7 89% -44 *
Gabby Hartnett 13.0 30s 9.6 12.9 90% 74 *
Gary trailed the others (except Campy) in offense, but played more at
catcher than anyone except Fisk. He joins his peers in the Hall.
Key to stats:
FR -- Career fielding runs, as estimated by Total Baseball VII.
-- From '88-'96, fielding runs generated from DA substituted.
Peaks for Prominent First Basemen
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Lou Gehrig 42.1 30s 46.2 14.1 99% -60 *
Jimmie Foxx 33.9 30s 31.7 15.0 83% 30 *
Willie McCovey 31.9 60s 28.9 16.1 79% -30 *
Johnny Mize 27.9 30s 23.4 12.2 88% -14 * VC
Hank Greenberg 25.9 30s 13.9 9.1 82% 15 *
George Sisler 25.5 20s 3.0 13.6 96% 88 *
Eddie Murray 24.2 80s 25.3 19.3 80% 10 *
Orlando Cepeda 23.3 60s 14.6 13.3 79% -39 * VC
Don Mattingly 21.9 80s 4.6 11.4 92% -19 14%
Roger Connor 21.8 1880s 23.5 16.7 88% 45 * VC
Keith Hernandez 20.6 80s 14.9 13.2 96% 134 6%
Bill Terry 20.5 30s 11.6 11.2 92% 67 *
Steve Garvey 14.9 70s 4.3 14.7 88% -78 28%
Murray's first ballot for a reason. Mattingly, Hernandez, and Garvey
are listed in the wrong order in the voting results. If the writers
ever put Garvey in, he would be the worst position player ever put
in by them.
Peaks for Prominent Second Basemen
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Rogers Hornsby 41.5 20s 46.4 14.9 69% -91 *
Joe Morgan 33.6 70s 30.3 16.6 95% -206 *
Nap Lajoie 32.2 1900s 27.4 16.6 82% 366 *
Eddie Collins 29.7 10s 39.6 18.6 94% 41 *
Rod Carew 25.9 70s 19.9 15.5 46% -85 * 48% 1b
Jackie Robinson 20.2 50s 5.6 9.0 54% 49 *
Ryne Sandberg 18.7 80s 4.0 13.5 92% 143 49%
Char. Gehringer 18.3 30s 11.9 15.1 95% 33 *
Frankie Frisch 12.6 20s 2.4 15.0 76% 148 *
Sandberg will go in eventually, but there's not much point in making him
wait.
No third basemen were on the ballot.
Peaks for Prominent Shortstops
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Honus Wagner 31.9 1900s 39.1 18.5 68% 102 *
Robin Yount 21.4 80s 3.4 17.9 52% 61 * 40% cf
Ernie Banks 21.2 50s 5.4 16.0 45% 4 * 50% 1b
Lou Boudreau 16.6 40s 3.0 10.7 93% 134 *
Alan Trammell 16.1 80s -1.7 14.7 93% -66 14%
Luke Appling 13.6 40s 7.3 15.7 92% 73 *
Joe Cronin 12.3 30s 7.6 13.8 87% 68 *
Dave Concepcion 5.6 70s -16.8 15.7 88% -44 11%
Rabbit Maranville 0.6 10s -24.3 17.4 81% 154 *
Luis Aparicio 0.4 60s -20.2 16.3 99% 51 *
70 votes for Trammell, 55 votes for Concepcion. Are they that hard to
tell apart?
Peaks for Prominent Leftfielders
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Ted Williams 46.0 40s 59.5 14.9 87% -33 *
Carl Yastrzemski 30.2 60s 25.1 20.7 58% 149 * 23% 1b
Willie Stargell 28.8 70s 26.6 14.7 52% -51 * 36% 1b
Ralph Kiner 27.5 40s 9.8 9.6 89% -2 *
Billy Williams 23.5 60s 19.8 15.4 70% 53 *
Al Simmons 21.2 20s 11.2 14.4 62% 53 * 35% cf
Joe Medwick 21.0 30s 11.1 12.9 90% 49 *
Jim Rice 19.2 70s 9.8 13.2 72% 71 52% 25% dh
Lou Brock 15.3 60s 9.0 16.1 83% 32 *
For leftfield, Jim Rice is a little low for a writer's pick. Still
better than Brock.
Peaks for Prominent Centerfielders
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Mickey Mantle 42.2 50s 53.0 15.3 73% -9 *
Ty Cobb 40.5 10s 73.5 19.9 72% 54 * 23% rf
Willie Mays 33.8 50s 62.0 18.9 94% 180 *
Tris Speaker 33.2 10s 51.2 18.4 96% 248 *
Joe DiMaggio 26.9 40s 23.9 11.3 94% 51 *
Duke Snider 24.7 50s 14.9 13.8 74% -62 *
DALE MURPHY 22.4 80s 1.6 13.8 48% 41 12% 34% rf
Andre Dawson 17.4 80s 10.5 16.8 39% 41 50% 49% rf
Kirby Puckett 16.2 80s 5.9 11.4 80% -102 *
52% for Rice, 50% for Dawson, 12% for Murph. Heck of a place to draw
a line. Puckett was first ballot. Sometimes life isn't fair.
Peaks for Prominent Rightfielders
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Babe Ruth 50.4 20s 78.9 16.5 45% 5 * 42% lf
Stan Musial 36.3 40s 57.9 19.6 25% -39 * 34% 1b, 31% lf
Hank Aaron 35.7 60s 68.9 20.7 66% 101 *
Frank Robinson 33.1 60s 52.2 17.6 46% 52 * 29% lf
Mel Ott 30.3 30s 48.1 17.7 79% -10 *
Reggie Jackson 28.4 70s 26.2 17.7 69% 8 * 22% dh
Harry Heilmann 27.2 20s 22.3 14.1 71% -48 * 21% 1b
Roberto Clemente 24.3 60s 17.9 15.3 95% 175 *
Al Kaline 23.2 60s 30.5 16.3 72% 103 *
Dave Winfield 22.8 80s 25.7 18.9 63% 2 *
Paul Waner 22.5 30s 23.5 16.6 89% 40 *
Dave Parker 21.0 70s 4.7 15.4 73% 98 10%
Willie Keeler 15.3 1890s 15.3 14.7 89% -29 *
Parker just doesn't measure up to rightfield standards. He'd be
considerably more valuable in centerfield, but judging from Murph he
wouldn't pick up more than a handful of votes.
Key to stats:
Peak -- total pitching wins (PW) for the best five years of the player
Years are not necessarily consecutive.
Outside -- total pitching wins outside the best five years
Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
GS -- Games Started
PB -- Career pitcher batting runs, as estimated by Total Baseball VII.
PW -- Pitching Wins, PR/A divided by R/W
PR/A -- park adjusted linear weight pitching runs, calculated by TBVII.
R/W -- Runs per Win, calculated by (4 * League Runs) / (League Games * 1.83)
Hall -- Hall of Fame status. * indicates HOFer, with VC or OT for committee
Active players listed as Actv
Currently BBWAA eligible listed with highest vote %.
Players not yet eligible listed with year of eligibility.
Players recently retired are listed with year to appear on ballot.
Players on ineligible list are listed as -IE-
Peaks for prominent pitchers
Name Peak Decade Outside GS PB Hall
Walter Johnson 35.2 10s 39.6 666 99 *
Grover Alexander 29.7 10s 27.8 600 24 *
Cy Young 29.1 1900s 42.5 815 -22 *
Lefty Grove 27.9 30s 27.9 457 -37 *
Chrsty Mathewson 27.7 1900s 17.1 552 59 *
Sandy Koufax 24.9 60s 2.1 314 -25 *
Bob Gibson 24.8 60s 13.3 482 65 *
Tom Seaver 24.5 70s 22.0 647 28 *
Carl Hubbell 24.3 30s 11.5 433 -5 *
Steve Carlton 23.8 70s 7.8 709 49 *
Juan Marichal 23.2 60s 5.4 457 10 *
Dazzy Vance 22.4 20s 2.4 349 -18 *
Jim Palmer 22.3 70s 13.9 521 7 *
Bob Feller 21.9 40s 8.0 484 -7 *
Gaylord Perry 20.8 60s 15.0 690 -16 *
Robin Roberts 20.6 50s 4.0 609 34 *
Phil Niekro 19.7 70s 13.3 716 -6 *
Bert Blyleven 19.6 70s 14.0 685 -13 29%
Warren Spahn 19.0 50s 16.9 665 88 *
Whitey Ford 18.7 50s 16.1 438 27 *
Bob Lemon 17.2 50s 3.3 350 90 *
Don Drysdale 17.0 60s 9.2 465 59 *
Fergie Jenkins 16.6 70s 10.1 594 13 *
Dizzy Dean 16.2 30s 3.4 230 15 *
Don Sutton 16.1 70s 1.8 756 -7 *
Early Wynn 15.8 50s -3.9 612 72 *
Ted Lyons 15.7 30s 12.4 484 32 *
Nolan Ryan 15.7 70s 9.0 773 -17 *
Red Ruffing 15.1 30s -0.5 538 143 *
Catfish Hunter 14.7 70s -7.5 476 33 *
Herb Pennock 14.5 20s -8.2 419 3 *
Jim Kaat 13.7 60s -0.4 625 41 26%
Tommy John 12.7 70s 8.2 700 1 23%
Jack Morris 11.8 80s -3.9 527 0 23%
F. Valenzuela 11.5 80s -3.2 424 32 6%
Fernando stays on the ballot one more year, though the difference
between him and Morris is 100 league-average starts. Blyleven,
Kaat, John, and Morris all land in the twenties. One of those
pitched like a HOFer, one pitched like Don Sutton, one will be off
the ballot next year, and one just doesn't belong.
Key to stats:
Peak -- total pitching wins (PW) for the pitcher's best five relief years
Years are not necessarily consecutive.
Outside -- total pitching wins outside the best five years
Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
RIP -- Relief innings pitched, fractional innings dropped.
~ indicates estimate
GS -- Games Started
PW -- Pitching Wins, PR/A divided by R/W
PR/A -- park adjusted linear weight pitching runs, calculated by TBVII.
R/W -- Runs per Win, calculated by (4 * League Runs) / (League Games * 1.83)
Hall -- Hall of Fame status. * indicates HOFer, with VC or OT for committee
Active players listed as Actv
Currently BBWAA eligible listed with highest vote %.
Players not yet eligible listed with year of eligibility.
Players recently retired are listed with year to appear on ballot.
Players on ineligible list are listed as -IE-
Peaks for Prominent Relief Pitchers
Name Peak Decade Outside RIP GS Hall
Goose Gossage 13.4 70s 3.0 1556 37 42%
Hoyt Wilhelm 12.4 60s 20.2 1871 52 *
Bruce Sutter 11.1 70s 0.7 1042 0 54%
Rollie Fingers 9.0 70s 3.5 1500 37 *
Lee Smith 8.4 80s 5.6 1252 6 42%
The writers are still struggling with defining a HOF reliever. I like
all three guys, but I like Goose the most.
--
Dale J. Stephenson
daleste...@mac.com
3/27/87 -- Ed Hearn for David Cone. 12/20/02 -- Millwood for Estrada
Schuerholz has finally topped himself.
Brad Filippone
Brad
Tom MacIntyre
It said in an article I read on www.cnnsi.com that Carter could have
the first Expo cap in Cooperstown. That is a certainty, I hope. It'd
be a shame for a team to vanish after 30+ years with no HOF members.
Has anything like that happened?
I remember Carter in an All-Star game blocking the plate when Claudell
Washington (I think) was trying to score. The Pete Rose=IDIOT thing
didn't happen, and Claudell was out, but it had to cross Carter's mind
that he could be hurt.
Tom
Anthony Giacalone
White Sox or Phillie?
Here are three players, with their OPS+ by age. One is a Hall of Famer,
another will be a HOFer eventually and the third is Danny Tartabull who
received ONE vote.
Age OPS+
Age 1 2 3
20 ----- 136
21 180* 131 90*
22 152* 123 128
23 124 151 121
24 142 156 148
25 145 181 158
26 128 140 154
27 128 131 123
28 171 119 117
29 153 142 131
30 132 115 141
31 115 97 112
32 89 132 123
33 111 92 137
34 5* 128* 101
35 118* 102
36 23* 70*
tot 133 134 128
* = very limited playing time.
The thing that separates Tartabull (#1) from Medwick (#2) from Rice (#3) are
two more league average years. If Tartabull plays keeps plays two more
years like he did for the Sox in 1996, then he's better than Ducky Wucky
Medwick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proud Sponsor of the 1977 Chicago White Sox reference page at
www.baseball-reference.com.
"Marc Sindell" <marc...@REMOVETHISsover.net> wrote in message
news:4lHS9.34155$wQ1.255@fe01...
Mischa Gelman
Tom MacIntyre wrote:
> the first Expo cap in Cooperstown. That is a certainty, I hope. It'd
> be a shame for a team to vanish after 30+ years with no HOF members.
> Has anything like that happened?
Louisville had major league baseball for 18 years without a Cooperstown
cap. Honus Wagner, Fred Clarke and Rube Waddell all played for the city,
but all were better known for their later teams.
Pete Browning for the Hall!
--
Almost everything that you do will be insignificant, but it is very
important that you do it - Mohandas Gandhi
Robert Coffey
>
> I remember Carter in an All-Star game blocking the plate when Claudell
> Washington (I think) was trying to score. The Pete Rose=IDIOT thing
> didn't happen, and Claudell was out, but it had to cross Carter's mind
> that he could be hurt.
>
There are a plethora (I just finished watching the Three Amigos, sorry
about that) of reasons to call Rose an idiot, but the Fosse incident
is not one of them. Unlike Selig and modern All-star managers, Rose
treated the game with importance. If the game is worth winning it
is worth plowing a catcher for. If it effectively ends his career,
well thats part of the game. Obviously, Fosse felt the same way or
he would have stood to the side and ole tagged Rose as he went by.
Anytime the catcher considers the game important enought to block
the plate, it's important enough to drill him.
Rob
Matt Deres
"Robert Coffey" <r_o_b_c_f...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:3E1D0AF7...@insightbb.com...
> Tom MacIntyre wrote:
> >
> > I remember Carter in an All-Star game blocking the plate when Claudell
> > Washington (I think) was trying to score. The Pete Rose=IDIOT thing
> > didn't happen, and Claudell was out, but it had to cross Carter's mind
> > that he could be hurt.
> >
>
> There are a plethora (I just finished watching the Three Amigos, sorry
> about that) of reasons to call Rose an idiot, but the Fosse incident
> is not one of them. Unlike Selig and modern All-star managers, Rose
> treated the game with importance. If the game is worth winning it
> is worth plowing a catcher for.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Gice yerself a prize, kid. Gold star for you if you can explain why the
All-Star game is worth winning.
Matt
Anthony Giacalone
And I still care who wins. I still root for the AL every year. I don't
hate the NLers like I used to (stupid Dave Concepcion) but I always root for
the AL. I don't tune into see a tie. Or some farce like in the NBA
all-star game where there is a designated MVP before hand whom everyone
feeds the ball to and let's score.
I like the MLB All Star game. Now the home run derby, on the other hand, .
. .
"Matt Deres" <mdere...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:8K6T9.265905$F2h1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Ivan Weiss
news:avi8sb$fthk1$1...@ID-133338.news.dfncis.de...
> Was Tartabull really that bad or are you just remembering him as a washed
> White Sox or Phillie?
>
> Here are three players, with their OPS+ by age. One is a Hall of Famer,
> another will be a HOFer eventually and the third is Danny Tartabull who
> received ONE vote.
(list of numbers which does not mean jack shit snipped)
You can Google my previous posts concerning why I think Tartabull is a bum,
if you are so inclined. He didn't hustle. He didn't care. He squandered his
considerable gifts. He was a cancer. In my 50+ years of following major
league baseball, Tartabull is the single most extreme case I can remember. I
would vote for Pete Rose or Alex Johnson for the HOF before I would vote for
Tartabull.
--
Ivan Weiss
Vashon WA http://www.baseball116.com
Proud to sponsor the Smead Jolley, Zeke Bonura, Dale Alexander,
and Bob Fothergill pages at www.baseball-reference.com
Tom MacIntyre
<ivan....@centurytel.net> wrote:
>"Anthony Giacalone" <giac...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:avi8sb$fthk1$1...@ID-133338.news.dfncis.de...
>> Was Tartabull really that bad or are you just remembering him as a washed
>> White Sox or Phillie?
>>
>> Here are three players, with their OPS+ by age. One is a Hall of Famer,
>> another will be a HOFer eventually and the third is Danny Tartabull who
>> received ONE vote.
>
>(list of numbers which does not mean jack shit snipped)
>
>You can Google my previous posts concerning why I think Tartabull is a bum,
>if you are so inclined. He didn't hustle. He didn't care. He squandered his
>considerable gifts. He was a cancer. In my 50+ years of following major
>league baseball, Tartabull is the single most extreme case I can remember. I
>would vote for Pete Rose or Alex Johnson for the HOF before I would vote for
>Tartabull.
Every time I hear the name I think of a quote from his father, who I
guess was not too big and strong, saying that he got his power from
his mother. It was funny at the time... :-)
Tom
dvda...@earthlink.net
I've got to agree with that. Furthermore, Fosse did just fine in the second
half of 1970. So unless there were effects that didn't manifest themselves
for many months, the collision didn't cost him a career. He just had a fluke
year in which he was involved in a famous incident.
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: I've got to agree with that. Furthermore, Fosse did just fine in the second
: half of 1970. So unless there were effects that didn't manifest themselves
: for many months, the collision didn't cost him a career. He just had a fluke
: year in which he was involved in a famous incident.
Fosse says that he rushed back, the injury never properly healed, and he's
in pain from it to this day. I don't know if you can blame Rose for Fosse
rushing back -- he says that that's just the way it was in those days, but
one could blame the Indians for it -- but Fosse at least thinks the injury
cost him his career.
Anyone know how he projected from his minor league career?
JHB
The Arranger
> You can Google my previous posts concerning why I think Tartabull is a bum,
> if you are so inclined. He didn't hustle. He didn't care. He squandered his
> considerable gifts. He was a cancer. In my 50+ years of following major
> league baseball, Tartabull is the single most extreme case I can remember. I
> would vote for Pete Rose or Alex Johnson for the HOF before I would vote for
> Tartabull.
By your sponsoring of the Zeke Bonura and Smead Jolley pages at
baseball-reference.com, I'd think you'd have a soft pot in your heart
for a man of Danny Tartabull's defensive indifference.
Ivan Weiss
"The Arranger" <scrc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:69247afc.03010...@posting.google.com...
You'd think, yes. The difference is that I *saw* Tartabull play. The others
were out of MLB before I was born. From what I have read of Jolley and
Bonura (and Alexander, too), at least they tried. They were just klutzes.
Tartabull at least *had* some ability. Remember, he was a second baseman
when he came up. He just was a bow-wow, arf-arf dog, and IMO not even as
good a hitter as Jolley, Bonura, Alexander or Fothergill.
Anthony Giacalone
Not to mention Moose Alexander and Fats Fothergill.
Anthony Giacalone
> > By your sponsoring of the Zeke Bonura and Smead Jolley pages at
> > baseball-reference.com, I'd think you'd have a soft pot in your heart
> > for a man of Danny Tartabull's defensive indifference.
>
> You'd think, yes. The difference is that I *saw* Tartabull play. The
others
> were out of MLB before I was born. From what I have read of Jolley and
> Bonura (and Alexander, too), at least they tried. They were just klutzes.
> Tartabull at least *had* some ability. Remember, he was a second baseman
> when he came up. He just was a bow-wow, arf-arf dog, and IMO not even as
> good a hitter as Jolley, Bonura, Alexander or Fothergill.
Here is more jack shit then. How can you say that he was not as good a
hitter as Bonura, Jolley, Alexander and Fothergill. Have you even seen the
numbers? His career is three times as long as Alexander, Fats and Jolley's
and over twice as long as Bonura. Tartabull's best seasons were better than
theirs; his worst season's weren't as bad. Tartabull was a below average
fielder but not horrible. He had a strong arm and played RF in Royal
Stadium for years. I'll say it against since neither of us were alive to
see Ducky Medwick play. He and Tartabull are very similar. I'm not
suggesting that Tartabull is a legitimate HOFer. All I said was that I
didn't find it laughable that he received a vote for the Hall. I think that
we remember his as a slow, bad fielder who struck out a lot but hit a few
homers but we forget that he hit .313/.397/.593 in Royal Stadium in 1991.
He hit for power (6 times with more than 25 homers, back when that meant
something). He hit for average. His drew walks. He drove in runs in run
scarce environments (6 100 RBI seasons and another 96 RBI year). And he
appeared in an episode of Seinfeld.
Also, I don't quite understand your argument. You don't like someone
because he had more talent than he displayed? Even if that's true (and I
find it a hard argument to make), how do you reconcile these things. If
someone is mediocre but tries real hard, are they HOFers over the guy who
has a ton of talent but seems bad at fundamentals? Where is the line here?
Can a bad fielder who hits .320 with 30 homers be worse than an equally bad
fielder who hits .290 with 20 homers because the latter guy, at least,
"tried?" I mean Tartabull (a loafer) hit .316/.397/.593 for the 1991 Royals
but on the same team was Jim Eisenreich (a scrapper) who hit .301/.333/.392.
Are you really arguing that you'd rather have Eisenreich than Tartabull
during that year?
Ivan Weiss
> "Ivan Weiss" <ivan....@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:CwrT9.6718$Pm2.4...@feed2.centurytel.net...
> > > By your sponsoring of the Zeke Bonura and Smead Jolley pages at
> > > baseball-reference.com, I'd think you'd have a soft pot in your heart
> > > for a man of Danny Tartabull's defensive indifference.
> >
> > You'd think, yes. The difference is that I *saw* Tartabull play. The
> others
> > were out of MLB before I was born. From what I have read of Jolley and
> > Bonura (and Alexander, too), at least they tried. They were just
klutzes.
> > Tartabull at least *had* some ability. Remember, he was a second baseman
> > when he came up. He just was a bow-wow, arf-arf dog, and IMO not even as
> > good a hitter as Jolley, Bonura, Alexander or Fothergill.
>
> Here is more jack shit then. How can you say that he was not as good a
> hitter as Bonura, Jolley, Alexander and Fothergill. Have you even seen the
> numbers?
Of course I have seen the numbers. Am I required to draw the same
conclusions from them that you do?
His career is three times as long as Alexander, Fats and Jolley's
> and over twice as long as Bonura.
That's because (1) there was a DH when Tartabull played. Jolley would have
had a 20-year career today if he could have DHed. (2) Alexander's career was
cut short by injuries. (3) Fothergill ate and drank his way out of baseball
and died at 40 (4) Bonura's career was cut short by WWII
Tartabull's best seasons were better than
> theirs; his worst season's weren't as bad. Tartabull was a below average
> fielder but not horrible. He had a strong arm and played RF in Royal
> Stadium for years.
IMO he was indeed horrible. YMMV.
I'll say it against since neither of us were alive to
> see Ducky Medwick play. He and Tartabull are very similar. I'm not
> suggesting that Tartabull is a legitimate HOFer. All I said was that I
> didn't find it laughable that he received a vote for the Hall. I think
that
> we remember his as a slow, bad fielder who struck out a lot but hit a few
> homers
*WE* remember? *YOU* remember. *I* remember him as a dog who would not
hustle. I do not find it laughable that he received a HOF vote. I find it
disgusting.
but we forget that he hit .313/.397/.593 in Royal Stadium in 1991.
> He hit for power (6 times with more than 25 homers, back when that meant
> something). He hit for average. His drew walks. He drove in runs in run
> scarce environments (6 100 RBI seasons and another 96 RBI year). And he
> appeared in an episode of Seinfeld.
I never denied that he could hit, and I certainly didn't forget it.
> Also, I don't quite understand your argument. You don't like someone
> because he had more talent than he displayed? Even if that's true (and I
> find it a hard argument to make), how do you reconcile these things.
I reconcile them any way I please. The guy didn't hustle. What part of that
do you fail to understand?
If
> someone is mediocre but tries real hard, are they HOFers over the guy who
> has a ton of talent but seems bad at fundamentals? Where is the line here?
Right where your straw man begins.
> Can a bad fielder who hits .320 with 30 homers be worse than an equally
bad
> fielder who hits .290 with 20 homers because the latter guy, at least,
> "tried?" I mean Tartabull (a loafer) hit .316/.397/.593 for the 1991
Royals
> but on the same team was Jim Eisenreich (a scrapper) who hit
.301/.333/.392.
> Are you really arguing that you'd rather have Eisenreich than Tartabull
> during that year?
Not germane. I never mentioned Eisenreich. Eisenreich has nothing to do with
this.
Dale J. Stephenson
> [...]I'll say it against since neither of us were alive to
> see Ducky Medwick play. He and Tartabull are very similar. I'm not
> suggesting that Tartabull is a legitimate HOFer. All I said was that I
> didn't find it laughable that he received a vote for the Hall. I think that
> we remember his as a slow, bad fielder who struck out a lot but hit a few
> homers but we forget that he hit .313/.397/.593 in Royal Stadium in 1991.
> He hit for power (6 times with more than 25 homers, back when that meant
> something). He hit for average. His drew walks. He drove in runs in run
> scarce environments (6 100 RBI seasons and another 96 RBI year). And he
> appeared in an episode of Seinfeld.
>
Medwick played more and wasn't as bad as Tartabull on difference. And his
career fits in better with other HOFers than Tartabull does.
Key to stats:
Peak -- total offensive wins (OW) for the best five years of the player
years are not necessarily consecutive.
Outside -- total offensive wins outside the best five years
Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
Years -- Games played, divided by most common games/team for each year.
@Pos -- percent of games played at this position
FR -- Career fielding runs, as estimated by Total Baseball VII.
-- From '88-'96, fielding runs generated from DA substituted.
Hall -- Hall of Fame status. * indicates HOFer, with VC or OT for committee
Active players listed as Actv
Currently BBWAA eligible listed with highest vote %.
Players not yet eligible listed with year of eligibility.
Players recently retired are listed with year to appear on ballot.
Players on ineligible list are listed as -IE-
Other -- % of games played at other positions. Less than 20% not listed.
OW -- Offensive Wins, (BR/A + SBR) / R/W.
R/W -- Runs per win, calculated by (4 * League Runs) / (1.83 * League Games)
BR/A -- park adjusted linear weight batting runs, calculated by TB VII.
SBR -- stolen base runs. (SB*0.22 - CS*0.35). Not calculated for years
without caught stealing totals.
Peaks for Prominent Leftfielders
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Ted Williams 46.0 40s 59.5 14.9 87% -33 *
Carl Yastrzemski 30.2 60s 25.1 20.7 58% 149 * 23% 1b
Willie Stargell 28.8 70s 26.6 14.7 52% -51 * 36% 1b
Ralph Kiner 27.5 40s 9.8 9.6 89% -2 *
Ed Delahanty 26.4 1890s 18.0 13.3 57% 56 * OT
Billy Williams 23.5 60s 19.8 15.4 70% 53 *
Al Simmons 21.2 20s 11.2 14.4 62% 53 * 35% cf
Joe Medwick 21.0 30s 11.1 12.9 90% 49 *
Jesse Burkett 20.9 1890s 20.4 14.6 94% -19 * OT
Goose Goslin 19.4 20s 12.7 14.9 85% 62 * VC
Zack Wheat 19.2 20s 16.8 15.9 97% 50 * VC
Fred Clarke 17.5 1900s 20.1 15.4 98% 58 * OT
Joe Kelley 15.5 1890s 10.5 13.1 54% 21 * VC
Heine Manush 15.5 30s 4.6 13.0 67% -50 * VC
Lou Brock 15.3 60s 9.0 16.1 83% 32 *
Chick Hafey 15.2 20s 4.2 8.3 61% 1 * VC 22% cf
Given that Medwick was able to play through WWII, I'd rank him below
Simmons (longer career, centerfield), and Goslin (longer career, no
WWII boost). But he's clearly comparable to other HOFers.
Peaks for Prominent Rightfielders
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Babe Ruth 50.4 20s 78.9 16.5 45% 5 * 42% lf
Stan Musial 36.3 40s 57.9 19.6 25% -39 * 34% 1b, 31% lf
Hank Aaron 35.7 60s 68.9 20.7 66% 101 *
Frank Robinson 33.1 60s 52.2 17.6 46% 52 * 29% lf
Mel Ott 30.3 30s 48.1 17.7 79% -10 *
Reggie Jackson 28.4 70s 26.2 17.7 69% 8 * 22% dh
Harry Heilmann 27.2 20s 22.3 14.1 71% -48 * 21% 1b
Roberto Clemente 24.3 60s 17.9 15.3 95% 175 *
Elmer Flick 24.0 1900s 14.3 9.9 89% 23 * VC
Chuck Klein 23.7 30s 5.4 11.4 74% 16 * VC
Al Kaline 23.2 60s 30.5 16.3 72% 103 *
Dave Winfield 22.8 80s 25.7 18.9 63% 2 *
Sam Crawford 22.7 1900s 31.6 16.6 67% -48 * VC
Paul Waner 22.5 30s 23.5 16.6 89% 40 *
Ross Youngs 18.0 20s 4.2 8.1 98% -4 * VC
Danny Tartabull 17.3 90s 6.2 9.0 64% -78 29% dh
Sam Thompson 17.0 1890s 9.9 10.7 100% 52 * VC
Kiki Cuyler 16.5 20s 8.5 12.2 42% 12 * VC 37% cf
Enos Slaughter 16.2 40s 11.1 15.5 65% 0 * VC 22% lf
King Kelly 15.6 1880s 5.7 13.5 51% 0 * OT 40% c
Willie Keeler 15.3 1890s 15.3 14.7 89% -29 *
Harry Hooper 12.0 20s 7.8 15.2 95% 91 * VC
Sam Rice 9.4 20s 8.2 15.7 69% 75 * VC 25% cf
Tommy McCarthy 4.2 1890s -6.3 9.6 51% 49 * OT 40% lf
Even if you don't dock people for DH time (and I would), Tartabull
doesn't compare well to anyone except VC mistakes. Low peak, short
career, bad defense--nothing to recommend him as a Hall of Famer.
His rate states were excellent, so a healthy Tartabull with good defense
is a likely Hall of Famer. But he couldn't or didn't play every day,
and his defense was not good. Here's his games played in the outfield
from 88-96 (DA years, corresponds to ages 25-33):
130 73 52 124 68 50 26 19 122
He only played enough games to be listed individually in DA three times,
in '88, '91, and '96. Judging from his games played and OPS+ those
years (145, 171, and 111 as a 33-year old) he was healthy.
The terms:
DA -- Defensive Average, or % of balls hit to fielder turned into outs.
NHS -- Hits prevented beyond a league average fielder [based on DA & AOps]
NEB -- Extra Bases prevented beyond a league average fielder
[based on AOps, 2b/AOps, 3b/AOps]
NDP -- Double plays turned beyond a league average fielder [based on DPI%,
DPOps]
DR -- Defensive Runs. NHS * .72 + NEB * .31 + NDP * .50
(.72 = TBIII's run value for an out (-.30) with the value for a single (.42))
(.31 = TBIII's difference between double (.73) and single (.42), or triple
(1.04) and double (.73))
(.50 = TBIII's value for an out on base (-.50))
88 Tartabull,Dan DA 0.503 NHS -17 NEB -20 DR -18.44
91 Tartabull,Dan DA 0.474 NHS -36 NEB -27 DR -34.04
96 Tartabull,Dan DA 0.544 NHS -5 NEB -5 DR -4.77
** Tartabull,Dan DA 0.508 NHS -58 NEB -52 DR -57
For '88-'96, those -57 runs trail only Buhner, Dawson, and Bichette.
Considering that Dawson and Bichette have five seasons of DA and Buhner
had six, that's quite a feat. His .474 DA in '91 is the 4th lowest for
anybody in rightfield during the whole era (the others are Jay Buhner's
.469 in '95, and Juan Gonzalez and Troy O'Leary's .471 in '96).
Tartabull's .508 career DA is trailed by only three players (Gonzalez,
Chili Davis, and Dave Nilsson) all of who only have a single season
logged in right field. And two of those (Gonzalez and Davis) at least
played respectable defense in left.
Put bluntly, Tartabull apparently played DH for a reason. I don't know
whether that was because of bad effort or bad aptitude. But either way,
it has to be held against him when evaluating his career. Put Tartabull
in the class of guys who had the hitting skill of a potential Hall of
Famer, but had too short a career and gave a lot of hitting back with
his glove.
Anthony Giacalone
> His career is three times as long as Alexander, Fats and Jolley's
> > and over twice as long as Bonura.
>
> That's because (1) there was a DH when Tartabull played. Jolley would have
> had a 20-year career today if he could have DHed.
Jolley did not come the majors until he was 28. Are you arguing that he
would have played until he was 48, if he had played with a DH? Jolley
played 408 games in the OF; Tartabull played 790 games in the OF (plus
another 80 or so in the infield). I don't really see how the DH helped
Tartabull be a better player than Jolley.
>(2) Alexander's career was
> cut short by injuries.
I can't find any record of Alexander's injuries. Could you explain. The
story as I understand it is that Alexander, who had lost the power that he'd
come the major with, had a bad year after winning the batting title in 1932
and Boston decided to bring in Eddie Morgan. Alexander's atrocious fielding
heavily contributed to his demise.
> (3) Fothergill ate and drank his way out of baseball
> and died at 40
I don't quite see what that has to do with the equation. Was he a better
player than Tartabull or not? Fothergill was a very good platoon hitter for
mediocre teams from 1926-1929. Every year but 1927, Fothergill split time
with Al Wingo or John Stone. Maybe there are extenuating circumstances to
Fatty's problems but so what? Maybe there are extenuating circumstances to
Tartabull's indifference. Who cares?
>(4) Bonura's career was cut short by WWII
First, I can't see it that way. Bonura had been traded four times between
1938-1940. In 1940 he posted lousy numbers for bad teams (Senators and
Cubs). Do you have a record of him being drafted before the 1941 season? I
have no record of him in the military. Besides, how can you possibly
criticize Tartabull's indiffernce when Banana Nose's fielding indifference
was legendary. As White Sox historian Richard Lindberg has said Bonura was
a "manager's nightmare. Bonura led AL first basemen in fielding in 1936 by
refusing to become involved. As easy grounders bounded by untouched, Zeke
waved his "Mussolini salute" with his glove." Aside from the off color
Italian slur, isn't this what you are basically accusing Tartabull of? So
between Tartabull and Bonura, Tartabull has better numbers, played longer,
played a more difficult position and was certainly no worse a fielder. How
again is Bonura better?
The rest of your post is you either stating your opinion without any facts
to back it up or denying that my one analogy has any relevance.
I appreciated your "even if Allie Reynolds may not have been the best he
sure seemed the best to me and I remember him argument" but this one I'm
lost on.
Anthony Giacalone
I'm not making a case for Tartabull for the HOF. Honestly. All that I was
responding to was that there have been many many worse players who received
more than one vote. A smattering of votes for Tartabull are not rediculous.
Tartabull getting 75% and entering the HOF would be rediculous.
"Dale J. Stephenson" <daleste...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:m3adi9b...@mac.com...
Anthony Giacalone
> >(2) Alexander's career was
> > cut short by injuries.
>
> I can't find any record of Alexander's injuries. Could you explain. The
> story as I understand it is that Alexander, who had lost the power that
he'd
> come the major with, had a bad year after winning the batting title in
1932
> and Boston decided to bring in Eddie Morgan. Alexander's atrocious
fielding
> heavily contributed to his demise.
But I didn't look hard enough.
Boston's Dale Alexander suffers a career-ending injury when he twists his
knee sliding into home in the 2nd game of a doubleheader loss to the A's.
The first baseman will undergo a new therapy, diathermy, which will lead to
3rd degree burns, gangrene and the near loss of his leg. Last year's batting
champ will hit just .281 this year and retire with a career mark of .331.
The A's win 7–3 behind the relief win of Lefty Grove , then 11–8 in 12
innings, with Grove throwing scoreless 10th and 11th innings. Lloyd Brown
goes all the way for the Sox before tiring and walking three and giving up a
pair of singles in the 12th.
Although I wonder how much this really ended his career. He went on to post
some good numbers in the American Association in 1935.
Mischa Gelman
Anthony Giacalone wrote:
> Jolley did not come the majors until he was 28.
In large part due to questions about his fielding. If he had been in a DH era,
he would have been in the bigs sooner.
>> (3) Fothergill ate and drank his way out of baseball
> I don't quite see what that has to do with the equation.
Besides, it sounds like Fothergill's personal issues were more of a problem for
him than Tartabull's personality was. If Fats wasted his career, he had only
himself to blame.
Overall, I agree with most of your points.
--
We have to kill and maim and destroy - we stand for everything that's good and
decent in the world - Maxwell Smart
James Dunlop
>From: Tom MacIntyre tom__ma...@hotmail.com
>Date: 1/8/2003 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <i79p1v02l4fnud3cu...@4ax.com>
>
>
>It said in an article I read on www.cnnsi.com that Carter could have
>the first Expo cap in Cooperstown. That is a certainty, I hope. It'd
>be a shame for a team to vanish after 30+ years with no HOF members.
>Has anything like that happened?
>
While they didn't last 30 years, the second Washington Senators are probably
going to be the only segment of a 20th century franchise of more than two years
to not have a HoFer. Frank Howard is probably their best bet (as a player, Gil
Hodges is more likely, at least as a manager, and I'm not counting Ted
Williams.)
Tom MacIntyre
wrote:
But Ted counts, though? I know he's in as a player, but he has the
managerial connection, and is in the HOF...
Tom
Mark Reichert
> one could blame the Indians for it -- but Fosse at least thinks the injury
> cost him his career.
I seem to remember Fosse getting a lot of nagging injuries from trying
to tough things out.
Maaafsaea
>From: daleste...@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson)
>Peaks for Prominent Shortstops
>
>Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
>Honus Wagner 31.9 1900s 39.1 18.5 68% 102 *
>Robin Yount 21.4 80s 3.4 17.9 52% 61 * 40% cf
>Ernie Banks 21.2 50s 5.4 16.0 45% 4 * 50% 1b
>Lou Boudreau 16.6 40s 3.0 10.7 93% 134 *
>Alan Trammell 16.1 80s -1.7 14.7 93% -66 14%
>Luke Appling 13.6 40s 7.3 15.7 92% 73 *
>Joe Cronin 12.3 30s 7.6 13.8 87% 68 *
>Dave Concepcion 5.6 70s -16.8 15.7 88% -44 11%
>Rabbit Maranville 0.6 10s -24.3 17.4 81% 154 *
>Luis Aparicio 0.4 60s -20.2 16.3 99% 51 *
>
>70 votes for Trammell, 55 votes for Concepcion. Are they that hard to
>tell apart?
>
Where does Ozzie Smith fit on this list? Did his peak period not match even
Aparicio's 0.4? I would have to guess that Trammell's offense would make up a
lot, if not all, of the difference between him and Smith.
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
maaa...@aol.com (Maaafsaea) writes:
>>Subject: Re: HoF results
>>From: daleste...@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson)
>
>>Peaks for Prominent Shortstops
>>
>>Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
>>Honus Wagner 31.9 1900s 39.1 18.5 68% 102 *
>>Robin Yount 21.4 80s 3.4 17.9 52% 61 * 40% cf
>>Ernie Banks 21.2 50s 5.4 16.0 45% 4 * 50% 1b
>>Lou Boudreau 16.6 40s 3.0 10.7 93% 134 *
>>Alan Trammell 16.1 80s -1.7 14.7 93% -66 14%
>>Luke Appling 13.6 40s 7.3 15.7 92% 73 *
>>Joe Cronin 12.3 30s 7.6 13.8 87% 68 *
>>Dave Concepcion 5.6 70s -16.8 15.7 88% -44 11%
>>Rabbit Maranville 0.6 10s -24.3 17.4 81% 154 *
>>Luis Aparicio 0.4 60s -20.2 16.3 99% 51 *
>>
>>70 votes for Trammell, 55 votes for Concepcion. Are they that hard to
>>tell apart?
>>
>
> Where does Ozzie Smith fit on this list? Did his peak period not match even
> Aparicio's 0.4? I would have to guess that Trammell's offense would make up a
> lot, if not all, of the difference between him and Smith.
I've included Smith in-line above. The measuring of defensive value
is perhaps never more important than it is in evaluating Ozzie Smith's
career. Is he an undeserving Hall of Famer or should he have been
named NL MVP ten times? An argument can be made either way . . .
Doug
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
___, Doug Massey, ASIC Digital Logic Designer
\o IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont |>
| Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752 |
/ \ |
. My homepage: http://doug.obscurestuff.com (|)
Dale J. Stephenson
[shortstop peak list that omitted Ozzie Smith snipped]
>
> Where does Ozzie Smith fit on this list? Did his peak period not match even
> Aparicio's 0.4? I would have to guess that Trammell's offense would make up a
> lot, if not all, of the difference between him and Smith.
Sorry, overzealous snipping:
Key to stats:
Peak -- total offensive wins (OW) for the best five years of the player
years are not necessarily consecutive.
Outside -- total offensive wins outside the best five years
Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
Years -- Games played, divided by most common games/team for each year.
@Pos -- percent of games played at this position
FR -- Career fielding runs, as estimated by Total Baseball VII.
-- From '88-'96, fielding runs generated from DA substituted.
Hall -- Hall of Fame status. * indicates HOFer, with VC or OT for committee
Active players listed as Actv
Currently BBWAA eligible listed with highest vote %.
Players not yet eligible listed with year of eligibility.
Players recently retired are listed with year to appear on ballot.
Players on ineligible list are listed as -IE-
Other -- % of games played at other positions. Less than 20% not listed.
OW -- Offensive Wins, (BR/A + SBR) / R/W.
R/W -- Runs per win, calculated by (4 * League Runs) / (1.83 * League Games)
BR/A -- park adjusted linear weight batting runs, calculated by TB VII.
SBR -- stolen base runs. (SB*0.22 - CS*0.35). Not calculated for years
without caught stealing totals.
Peaks for Prominent Shortstops
Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
Honus Wagner 31.9 1900s 39.1 18.5 68% 102 *
Robin Yount 21.4 80s 3.4 17.9 52% 61 * 40% cf
Ernie Banks 21.2 50s 5.4 16.0 45% 4 * 50% 1b
Lou Boudreau 16.6 40s 3.0 10.7 93% 134 *
Alan Trammell 16.1 80s -1.7 14.7 93% -66 14%
Luke Appling 13.6 40s 7.3 15.7 92% 73 *
Joe Cronin 12.3 30s 7.6 13.8 87% 68 *
Ozzie Smith 6.6 80s -13.5 16.5 98% 341 *
Dave Concepcion 5.6 70s -16.8 15.7 88% -44 11%
Rabbit Maranville 0.6 10s -24.3 17.4 81% 154 *
Luis Aparicio 0.4 60s -20.2 16.3 99% 51 *
Ozzie Smith offensively is more than a match for Maranville and Aparicio,
but trails all the other HOFers. Trammell is over twenty wins ahead of
Smith on offense, but Ozzie has nearly two more season-equivalents and
his marvelous glove. TB underestimates Trammell's glove, but I think
Ozzie does make up that difference. Still, Trammell would make a fine
HOFer.
dvda...@earthlink.net
> TB underestimates Trammell's glove, but I think
> Ozzie does make up that difference. Still, Trammell would make a fine
> HOFer.
I'm certainly no fan of TB's fielding runs, but I'm not sure they
underestimate Trammell. I always heard that at least for the second half of
his career, Detroit kept the infield grass especially high because of their
slow infielders. That would mean there would be a park effect helping both
Tiger and visiting infielders at Tiger Stadium in comparison to how those
same infielders would do in Tiger road games. I don't know if anyone has
investigated to see if that park effect is really there.
Anthony Giacalone
up Concepcion's glove. Here are the defensive Win Shares for each player.
Age
Ozzie
Trammell
Concepcion
19
0.4
20
7.8
21
5.8
22
5.0
3.1
23
10.4
6.5
3.8
24
6.7
6.3
5.2
25
10.0
5.7
5.2
26
6.1
6.6
10.0
27
10.4
6.7
9.9
28
9.0
7.8
10.3
29
7.6
6.8
10.7
30
10.5
5.3
8.4
31
9.3
5.0
9.3
32
10.2
5.6
8.0
33
7.7
4.2
5.9
34
6.8
1.0
9.5
35
3.9
2.4
6.2
36
5.7
1.2
4.3
37
8.7
1.6
6.1
38
5.2
1.0
3.6
39
3.1
2.5
40
2.1
2.3
41
3.4
Totals
139.8
92.7
124
"Dale J. Stephenson" <daleste...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:m365si4...@mac.com...
Anthony Giacalone
screws up Concepcion's glove. But perhaps both players had home field
advantages (long grass, astroturf) that benefitted them.
Here are the defensive Win Shares for each player.
Age OS AT DC
19 ---- 0.4 ----
20 ---- 7.8 ----
21 ---- 5.8 ----
22 ---- 5.0 3.1
23 10.4 6.5 3.8
24 6.7 6.3 5.2
25 10.0 5.7 5.2
26 6.1 6.6 10.0
27 10.4 6.7 9.9
28 9.0 7.8 10.3
29 7.6 6.8 10.7
30 10.5 5.3 8.4
31 9.3 5.0 9.3
32 10.2 5.6 8.0
33 7.7 4.2 5.9
34 6.8 1.0 9.5
35 3.9 2.4 6.2
36 5.7 1.2 4.3
37 8.7 1.6 6.1
38 5.2 1.0 3.6
39 3.1 ---- 2.5
40 2.1 ---- 2.3
41 3.4
tot 139.8 124
92.7
Smith led the league in defWS 10 times and was among the top five 4 more
times. Concepcion was among the top five 10 times with 5 times leading in
defWS. He finished second to Smith three times. And Trammell led the his
league in defWS at short once (1981) and was among the league leaders only
twice more (1982,1987)
"Dale J. Stephenson" <daleste...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:m365si4...@mac.com...
Mosey's Sequence
>Peaks for Prominent Shortstops
>
>Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
>Ozzie Smith 6.6 80s -13.5 16.5 98% 341 *
While I understand 341 is a lot of runs to save with a glove, Hell it blows the
others away... over 16 years it is only about 20 a year.
Is that right? The best fielder ever at the most important fielding position was
"only" 20 runs a year better than average with his glove?
That doesn't seem like a lot (even by defense-cynical stathead measurements)
when you look at what it takes to do 20 runs offensivly.
John Mosey |..X..|....|Brew-o-meter FYBS! <--Translate and get a Brewers card
Exalted Grand Puba: http://www.fantasybaseballnews.com/
Sniveling Numbers Bitch: http://www.rotowire.com/baseball/
"Frankly, no one ever produced as good of projections as Mosey, but he's
gone straight downhill since fatherhood." -- Kevin Virobik
Dale J. Stephenson
> On 21 Jan 2003 09:58:38 -0500 daleste...@mac.com said some stupid crap like:
>
> >Peaks for Prominent Shortstops
> >
> >Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
> >Ozzie Smith 6.6 80s -13.5 16.5 98% 341 *
>
> While I understand 341 is a lot of runs to save with a glove, Hell it blows the
> others away... over 16 years it is only about 20 a year.
>
> Is that right? The best fielder ever at the most important fielding position was
> "only" 20 runs a year better than average with his glove?
>
Is it right? Almost certainly not. Total Baseball's Fielding Runs aren't
good for much more than good/bad determination (and not even that at
catcher and first base). Still, 20 runs better than average over that
many seasons as a whopper load of wins. 30 wins over average *at that
position* on offense is a sure ticket to the HOF.
> That doesn't seem like a lot (even by defense-cynical stathead measurements)
> when you look at what it takes to do 20 runs offensivly.
>
I would think that statheads, while cynical about defensive measurements,
shouldn't understate the value of defense (except at catcher :->). Since
we discount pitcher effects on batted balls, that leaves a lot of value
for the fielder :->.
Speaking of better measurements, here's Ozzie Smith from the DA days:
The terms:
DA -- Defensive Average, or % of balls hit to fielder turned into outs.
NHS -- Hits prevented beyond a league average fielder [based on DA & AOps]
NEB -- Extra Bases prevented beyond a league average fielder
[based on AOps, 2b/AOps, 3b/AOps]
NDP -- Double plays turned beyond a league average fielder [based on DPI%,
DPOps]
DR -- Defensive Runs. NHS * .72 + NEB * .31 + NDP * .50
(.72 = TBIII's run value for an out (-.30) with the value for a single (.42))
(.31 = TBIII's difference between double (.73) and single (.42), or triple
(1.04) and double (.73))
(.50 = TBIII's value for an out on base (-.50))
88 Smith,Ozzie DA 0.742 NHS 49 NEB -1 NDP 1 DR 35.22
89 Smith,Ozzie DA 0.717 NHS 41 NEB 2 NDP 1 DR 30.16
90 Smith,Ozzie DA 0.697 NHS 27 NEB -1 NDP 1 DR 19.50
91 Smith,Ozzie DA 0.672 NHS 9 NEB 1 NDP 6 DR 9.40
92 Smith,Ozzie DA 0.664 NHS 9 NEB -1 NDP 0 DR 6.10
93 Smith,Ozzie DA 0.647 NHS 9 NEB 2 NDP 11 DR 12.68
94 Smith,Ozzie DA 0.602 NHS -5 NEB 2 NDP 8 DR 0.57
96 Smith,Ozzie DA 0.685 NHS 11 NEB -1 NDP 7 DR 11.58
** Smith,Ozzie DA 0.681 NHS 150 NEB 3 NDP 35 DR 125
1988 is the best defensive year (by a shortstop) in the DA era [88-96].
1989 is the third best defensive year. So the 33-34 year old Ozzie Smith
was worth 30-35 runs over the average shortstop on defense, though he
fell off "badly" after that. FWIW, here's Ozzie's range factor divided
by league RF for his career
Age RF/lg
23 120
24 116
25 134
26 132
27 134
28 125
29 136
30 121
31 120
32 124
33 126 [+35 DR]
34 116 [+30 DR]
35 105 [+20 DR]
36 109 [+ 9 DR]
37 128 [+ 6 DR]
38 130 [+13 DR]
39 110 [+ 1 DR]
40 116
41 122 [+12 DR] 52 G
It's highly unlikely that 88-89 is Ozzie's defensive peak. I'd love to
see his DAs from 1980-1984. In his best year, I think he's got a shot
at 50 runs per year.
In case you were wondering if that +35 DR is the highest at any position,
it isn't. The best/worst spread is approximately the same at each
position. That's surprising, but (for example) the much smaller number
of balls through the first base zone is well compensated for by the
wider defensive range. Almost all shortstops are competent, while first
basemen mix competent and incompetent players. Here's the top DR at each
position:
1b) +26 [Mark Grace, 1992]
2b) +32 [Robby Thompson, 1989]
3b) +37 [Chris Sabo, 1988]
ss) +35 [Ozzie Smith, 1988]
lf) +34 [Greg Vaughn, 1991]
cf) +41 [Devon White, 1989]
rf) +37 [Tim Salmon, 1993]
Pleasingly symmetrical. Here's the worst at each:
1b) -32 [Pedro Guerrero, 1989]
2b) -32 [Kurt Stillwell, 1992]
3b) -36 [Dean Palmer, 1992]
ss) -28 [Kurt Stillwell, 1991]
lf) -29 [Mike Greenwell, 1995]
cf) -42 [Kirby Puckett, 1993]
rf) -43 [Dante Bichette, 1996]
Again, roughly symmetrical. Anyway, the declining Ozzie Smith does *not*
have the highest career DA at shortstop (minimum five seasons). That belongs
to this guy, only 3 years younger than Ozzie Smith:
88 Trammell,Alan DA 0.713 NHS 14 NEB 1 NDP -5 DR 8.15
89 Trammell,Alan DA 0.727 NHS 30 NEB 1 NDP -1 DR 21.66
90 Trammell,Alan DA 0.681 NHS 14 NEB 0 NDP 10 DR 15.35
91 Trammell,Alan DA 0.673 NHS 5 NEB 1 NDP 3 DR 4.76
96 Trammell,Alan DA 0.677 NHS 5 NEB 0 NDP -3 DR 2.37
** Trammell,Alan DA 0.697 NHS 68 NEB 3 NDP 4 DR 52
Not bad, but his high DA is offset by what seems to be a lower number of
chances (and changing league DAs). Trammell has 5 shortstops ahead of
him on the 88-96 list for "career" DR: Ozzie Smith, Greg Gagne, Cal Ripken,
Ozzie Guillen, and Royce Clayton. Admittedly, all but Clayton had more
seasons tracked by DA.
It's certainly possible that Concepcion was similarly underrated by
Total Baseball, though we lack any opportunity-based stats for his
time. But it's tough to believe anyone can match up with the Wizard.
David Marc Nieporent
>>Peaks for Prominent Shortstops
>>Name Peak Decade Outside Years @Pos FR Hall Other
>>Ozzie Smith 6.6 80s -13.5 16.5 98% 341 *
>While I understand 341 is a lot of runs to save with a glove, Hell it blows
>the others away... over 16 years it is only about 20 a year.
>Is that right? The best fielder ever at the most important fielding position
>was "only" 20 runs a year better than average with his glove?
>That doesn't seem like a lot (even by defense-cynical stathead measurements)
>when you look at what it takes to do 20 runs offensivly.
Well, that's an average. In his best years he did much better.
But I don't think anybody should take FRs seriously. There's no particular
rhyme or reason to them. The weightings are completely arbitrary, and I
mean that literally. Palmer simply waved his hands a lot and then plucked
them out of a hat.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Roger Moore
>Is that right? The best fielder ever at the most important fielding
>position was "only" 20 runs a year better than average with his glove?
That doesn't seem particularly out of order to me. We know that:
A) Offense and defense are roughly equally important for winning
B) Pitching is much more important- as much as 2-3 times as important- as
fielding for team defensive performance.
C) The top offensive players ever were in the neighborhood of 1000 runs
above average at their position for their careers, and that's at the
most important offensive positions.
Now try putting those things together. If we assume that pitching is
twice as important as fielding in team performance, that makes pitching
2/3 as important as hitting and fielding 1/3 as important. So if
offensive performance tops out at 1000 runs, we might expect pitching
performance to top out at around 650 runs and fielding performance to top
out just below 350 runs, which is surprisingly enough about what the
numbers say. (Of course those numbers are based at least partly on the
same assumptions about the relative importance of hitting, pitching, and
fielding, so perhaps we shouldn't be _that_ surprised at the agreement.)
My guess is that if you stuck in replacement level as a baseline instead
of average you'd get roughly similar results.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
David J. Grabiner
> In case you were wondering if that +35 DR is the highest at any position,
> it isn't. The best/worst spread is approximately the same at each
> position. That's surprising, but (for example) the much smaller number
> of balls through the first base zone is well compensated for by the
> wider defensive range. Almost all shortstops are competent, while first
> basemen mix competent and incompetent players. Here's the top DR at each
> position:
>
> 1b) +26 [Mark Grace, 1992]
> 2b) +32 [Robby Thompson, 1989]
> 3b) +37 [Chris Sabo, 1988]
> ss) +35 [Ozzie Smith, 1988]
> lf) +34 [Greg Vaughn, 1991]
> cf) +41 [Devon White, 1989]
> rf) +37 [Tim Salmon, 1993]
> Pleasingly symmetrical. Here's the worst at each:
>
> 1b) -32 [Pedro Guerrero, 1989]
> 2b) -32 [Kurt Stillwell, 1992]
> 3b) -36 [Dean Palmer, 1992]
> ss) -28 [Kurt Stillwell, 1991]
> lf) -29 [Mike Greenwell, 1995]
> cf) -42 [Kirby Puckett, 1993]
> rf) -43 [Dante Bichette, 1996]
Are some of these park effects? I would expect Red Sox left fielders to
get penalized for missing a lot of doubles 20 feet up off the wall, and
the white roof in Minnesota and thin air in Denver probably hurt
fielders there as well.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@alumni.princeton.edu, http://remarque.org/~grabiner
Baseball labor negotiations FAQ: http://remarque.org/~grabiner/laborfaq.html
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Dale J. Stephenson
Some of this is almost certainly park effects. Red Sox left fielders *do*
get penalized by the wall, though Greenwell's 95 is the worst of the lot.
The thin air in Denver certainly does penalize outfielders, though again
Bichette was low even by Denver standards. The metrodome is notorious
for it's difficult white roof, though (aside from Kirby Puckett) the
home outfielders there have mostly adapted, running a bit below average.
Infield is less prone to park effects, though both here and in the
outfield there might be synergestic effects from overlapping zones.
Everyone was horrid in San Diego's infield in '92. Of course, since
Stillwell was also horrid at a different position on a different team
the year before, he probably earned his mark. And I think Guerrero
and Palmer certainly earned all those negative runs on merit.
John DiFool
>
> But I don't think anybody should take FRs seriously. There's no particular
> rhyme or reason to them. The weightings are completely arbitrary, and I
> mean that literally. Palmer simply waved his hands a lot and then plucked
> them out of a hat.
And, as BJ demonstrated in his Win Shares book, they don't have to add
up to equal team totals.
JD
--
============================================
Reach heaven far too high
============================================
The Arranger
> grab...@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) writes:
>
> > daleste...@mac.com (Dale J. Stephenson) writes:
> >
> > > lf) -29 [Mike Greenwell, 1995]
> > > cf) -42 [Kirby Puckett, 1993]
> > > rf) -43 [Dante Bichette, 1996]
> >
> > Are some of these park effects? I would expect Red Sox left fielders to
> > get penalized for missing a lot of doubles 20 feet up off the wall, and
> > the white roof in Minnesota and thin air in Denver probably hurt
> > fielders there as well.
> >
> Some of this is almost certainly park effects. Red Sox left fielders *do*
> get penalized by the wall, though Greenwell's 95 is the worst of the lot.
> The thin air in Denver certainly does penalize outfielders, though again
> Bichette was low even by Denver standards. The metrodome is notorious
> home outfielders there have mostly adapted, running a bit below average.
Boston fan here. Greenwell was truly awful. He never moved an inch no
matter who was hitting, and left a dirt spot in left in Fenway similar
to the ones you'd find on a Little League field in my youth. The most
damaging aspect of Gator's outfield play, however, was his constant
collisions with Ellis Burks, who was often injured and became a more
tentative player overall as a result. They should have put a cowbell
on Greenie.